Bydon, Mohamad

OBJECTIVEPatient-reported outcomes have been increasingly mandated by regulators and payers to evaluate hospital and physician performance. The purpose of this study is to delineate the differences in patient-reported experience of hospital care for cranial and spinal operations.METHODSThe authors selected all patients who underwent inpatient, elective cranial or spinal procedures and completed the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) survey at a single, high-volume, tertiary care institution between October 2012 and September 2015. The association of the surgical procedure and diagnosis with various HCAHPS composite measures, calculated across 9 domains using standard top-box methodology, was investigated. Multivariable logistic regression models were fitted for outcomes that were significant with procedure type and diagnosis group on univariate analysis, adjusting for age, sex, case complexity, overall health rating, and education level.RESULTSA total of 1484 patients met criteria and returned an HCAHPS survey. Overall, patients undergoing a cranial procedure gave top-box (most favorable) scores more often in pain management measure (66.3% vs 59.6%, p = 0.01) compared with those undergoing spine surgery. Furthermore, despite better discharge scores (93.1% vs 87.1%, p < 0.001), spinal patients were less likely to report excellent health (7.4% vs 12.7%). Lastly, patients with a primary diagnosis of brain or spinal tumor compared with those with degenerative spinal disease and those with other neurosurgical diagnoses provided top-box scores more often regarding communication with doctors (82.7% vs 76.4% vs 75.2%, p = 0.04), pain management (71.8% vs 60.9% vs 59.1%, p = 0.002), and global rating (90.4% vs 84.0% vs 87.3%, p = 0.02). On multivariable analysis, spinal patients had significantly lower odds of reporting top-box scores in pain management (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.52–0.85; p = 0.001), staff responsiveness (OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.53–0.87; p = 0.002), and global rating (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.42–0.82; p = 0.002), and significantly higher odds of top-box scoring in discharge information (OR 2.15, 95% CI 1.45–3.18; p < 0.001) than cranial patients. Similarly, brain tumor cases were associated with significantly higher odds of top-box scoring in communication with doctors (OR 1.46, 95% CI 1.01–2.12; p = 0.04), pain management (OR 1.81, 95% CI 1.29–2.55; p < 0.001), staff responsiveness (OR 1.88, 95% CI 1.33–2.66; p < 0.001), and global rating (OR 2.00, 95% CI 1.26–3.17; p = 0.003) compared with degenerative spine cases.CONCLUSIONSSignificant differences in patient-reported experience with hospital care exist across different cranial and spine surgery patient populations. Overall, spinal patients, particularly those with degenerative spine disease, rated their health and their hospital experience lower relative to cranial patients. Identifying weaker areas of hospital performance in target populations can stimulate quality initiatives that aim to increase the overall hospital score.

OBJECTIVEThe natural history of complete spinal cord injury (SCI) is poorly studied. The classically quoted rate of improvement or conversion for patients with American Spinal Injury Association (ASIA) grade A (ASIA A) injuries is 15%–20%; however, data supporting this rate are very limited. In this paper, the authors conducted a meta-analysis of modern data reporting on ASIA A patients and evaluated factors affecting the natural history of the disease.METHODSThe authors conducted a systematic literature review of all randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and observational studies of patients with traumatic SCI. The Embase, MEDLINE, PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL, and Cochrane databases were reviewed for all studies reporting on SCI and published after 1992. A meta-analysis was conducted using the DerSimonian and Laird (random-effects) model with a summary odds ratio analysis.RESULTSEleven RCTs and 9 observational studies were included in the final analysis. Overall, the 20 included studies reported on 1162 patients with ASIA A injuries. The overall conversion rate was 28.1%, with 327 of 1162 patients improving to at least ASIA B. The overall rate of conversion noted in cervical spine injuries was 33.3%, whereas that in thoracic injuries was 30.6%. Patients undergoing early surgery had a higher rate of conversion (46.1%) than patients undergoing late surgery (25%) (OR 2.31, 95% CI 1.08–4.96, p = 0.03).CONCLUSIONSThe overall rate of conversion of ASIA A SCIs from pooled data of prospective trials and observational series is 28.1%. This rate of conversion is higher than what is reported in the literature. Early surgery is predictive of a higher conversion rate. However, there are not enough data to provide conclusions pertaining to the efficacy of biological and medical therapies.

OBJECTIVE Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) play a pivotal role in defining the value of surgical interventions for spinal disease. The concept of minimum clinically important difference (MCID) is considered the new standard for determining the effectiveness of a given treatment and describing patient satisfaction in response to that treatment. The purpose of this study was to determine the MCID associated with surgical treatment for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. METHODS The authors queried the Quality Outcomes Database registry from July 2014 through December 2015 for patients who underwent posterior lumbar surgery for grade I degenerative spondylolisthesis. Recorded PROs included scores on the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), EQ-5D, and numeric rating scale (NRS) for leg pain (NRS-LP) and back pain (NRS-BP). Anchor-based (using the North American Spine Society satisfaction scale) and distribution-based (half a standard deviation, small Cohen’s effect size, standard error of measurement, and minimum detectable change [MDC]) methods were used to calculate the MCID for each PRO. RESULTS A total of 441 patients (80 who underwent laminectomies alone and 361 who underwent fusion procedures) from 11 participating sites were included in the analysis. The changes in functional outcome scores between baseline and the 1-year postoperative evaluation were as follows: 23.5 ± 17.4 points for ODI, 0.24 ± 0.23 for EQ-5D, 4.1 ± 3.5 for NRS-LP, and 3.7 ± 3.2 for NRS-BP. The different calculation methods generated a range of MCID values for each PRO: 3.3–26.5 points for ODI, 0.04–0.3 points for EQ-5D, 0.6–4.5 points for NRS-LP, and 0.5–4.2 points for NRS-BP. The MDC approach appeared to be the most appropriate for calculating MCID because it provided a threshold greater than the measurement error and was closest to the average change difference between the satisfied and not-satisfied patients. On subgroup analysis, the MCID thresholds for laminectomy-alone patients were comparable to those for the patients who underwent arthrodesis as well as for the entire cohort. CONCLUSIONS The MCID for PROs was highly variable depending on the calculation technique. The MDC seems to be a statistically and clinically sound method for defining the appropriate MCID value for patients with grade I degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. Based on this method, the MCID values are 14.3 points for ODI, 0.2 points for EQ-5D, 1.7 points for NRS-LP, and 1.6 points for NRS-BP.

OBJECTIVE The American Association of Neurological Surgeons launched the Quality Outcomes Database (QOD), a prospective longitudinal registry that includes demographic, clinical, and patient-reported outcome (PRO) data, to measure the safety and quality of neurosurgical procedures, including spinal surgery. Differing results from recent randomized controlled trials have established a need to clarify the groups that would most benefit from surgery for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. In the present study, the authors compared patients who were the most and the least satisfied following surgery for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. METHODS This was a retrospective analysis of a prospective, national longitudinal registry including patients who had undergone surgery for grade 1 degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. The most and least satisfied patients were identified based on an answer of “1” and “4,” respectively, on the North American Spine Society (NASS) Satisfaction Questionnaire 12 months postoperatively. Baseline demographics, clinical variables, surgical parameters, and outcomes were collected. Patient-reported outcome measures, including the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) for back pain, NRS for leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and EQ-5D (the EuroQol health survey), were administered at baseline and 3 and 12 months after treatment. RESULTS Four hundred seventy-seven patients underwent surgery for grade 1 degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis in the period from July 2014 through December 2015. Two hundred fifty-five patients (53.5%) were the most satisfied and 26 (5.5%) were the least satisfied. Compared with the most satisfied patients, the least satisfied ones more often had coronary artery disease (CAD; 26.9% vs 12.2%, p = 0.04) and had higher body mass indices (32.9 ± 6.5 vs 30.0 ± 6.0 kg/m 2 , p = 0.02). In the multivariate analysis, female sex (OR 2.9, p = 0.02) was associated with the most satisfaction. Notably, the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class, smoking, psychiatric comorbidity, and employment status were not significantly associated with satisfaction. Although there were no significant differences at baseline, the most satisfied patients had significantly lower NRS back and leg pain and ODI scores and a greater EQ-5D score at 3 and 12 months postoperatively (p < 0.001 for all). CONCLUSIONS This study revealed that some patient factors differ between those who report the most and those who report the least satisfaction after surgery for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. Patients reporting the least satisfaction tended to have CAD or were obese. Female sex was associated with the most satisfaction when adjusting for potential covariates. These findings highlight several key factors that could aid in setting expectations for outcomes following surgery for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis.

ABSTRACTDegenerative disk disease of the spine is a major cause of back pain and disability. Optimization of regenerative medical therapies for degenerative disk disease requires a deep mechanistic understanding of the factors controlling the structural integrity of spinal tissues. In this investigation, we sought to identify candidate regulatory genes controlling extracellular matrix synthesis in spinal tissues. To achieve this goal we performed high throughput next generation RNA sequencing on 39 annulus fibrosus and 21 nucleus pulposus human tissue samples. Specimens were collected from patients undergoing surgical discectomy for the treatment of degenerative disk disease. Our studies identified associations between extracellular matrix genes, growth factors, and other important regulatory molecules. The fibrous matrix characteristic of annulus fibrosus was associated with expression of the growth factors platelet derived growth factor beta (PDGFB), vascular endothelial growth factor C (VEGFC), and fibroblast growth factor 9 (FGF9). Additionally we observed high expression of multiple signaling proteins involved in the NOTCH and WNT signaling cascades. Nucleus pulposus extracellular matrix related genes were associated with the expression of numerous diffusible growth factors largely associated with the transforming growth signaling cascade, including transforming factor alpha (TGFA), inhibin alpha (INHA), inhibin beta A (INHBA), bone morphogenetic proteins (BMP2, BMP6), and others. Clinical significance: this investigation provides important data on extracellular matrix gene regulatory networks in disk tissues. This information can be used to optimize pharmacologic, stem cell, and tissue engineering strategies for regeneration of the intervertebral disk and the treatment of back pain. © 2017 Orthopaedic Research Society. Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Orthop Res 36:1356–1369, 2018.

Study Design: Retrospective review. Objectives: This study investigates the prevalence of adverse postsurgical events, or osteoporosis-related complications (ORCs), following spinal fusion. Methods: Patients undergoing primary posterior thoracolumbar or lumbar fusion by 1 of 2 surgeons practicing at a single institution were analyzed from 2007 to 2014. ORCs were defined in one of the following categories: revision surgery, compression fracture, proximal junctional kyphosis, pseudarthrosis, or failure of instrumentation. Patients with a bone mineral density of the hips and/or spine performed within 1 year of the index procedure were included. Patients were stratified into normal bone density, osteopenia, and osteoporosis using WHO guidelines. Patients were excluded if they were younger than 18 years at the time of surgery, with infection, malignancy, skeletal dysplasia, neuromuscular disorders, concomitant or staged anterior-posterior procedure, or fusion performed because of trauma. Results: Out of 140 patients included, the prevalence of normal bone density was 31.4% (44/140), osteopenia 58.6% (82/140), and osteoporosis 10.0% (14/140). There were no differences between groups for gender, age, body mass index, and interbody device rate. The overall prevalence of ORCs was 32.1% (45/140). By group, there was a prevalence of 22.7% (10/44), 32.9% (27/82), and 50.0% (7/14) for normal bone density, osteopenia, and osteoporosis, respectively. These differences were significantly higher for both the osteopenia and osteoporosis groups. Conclusions: Patients with T scores below −1.0 undergoing posterior lumbar fusion have an increased prevalence of ORCs. Consideration of bone density plays a crucial role in patient selection, medical management, and counseling patient expectations.

Study Design. Systematic review and meta-analysis. Objective. To compare postoperative surgical, radiographic, and patient-reported outcomes following anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) with and without plate fixation. Summary of Background Data. ACDF has evolved significantly over the years, including the placement of an anterior plate construct. Although promoting bony osseo-integration at the fusion site, there are a number of plate-related complications that can arise. The non-plating approach is less invasive, however, greater rates of cage subsidence have been associated with this model. Methods. We performed an electronic literature search for human studies that directly compared ACDF with and without anterior plate fixation. Outcomes of interest comprised of postoperative dysphagia, fusion success, and cage subsidence as well as patient reported outcomes, including the Neck Disability Index (NDI) scores and Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for both neck and arm pain. Results. A total of 15 studies (12 observational and 3 randomized controlled trials) and 893 patients (57% males) were included. Overall, ACDF with plate fixation was associated with significantly higher vertebral fusion rates (odds ratio [OR] 1.98; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.16–3.37), lower subsidence rates (odds ratio [OR] 0.31, 95% CI 0.18–0.52), and more favorable VAS-neck pain scores at last follow-up (mean difference [MD] 0.59, 95% CI −0.78 to −0.41). Conversely, ACDF procedures without plate fixation had marginally better long-term VAS-arm pain scores (mean difference [MD] 0.2, 95% CI 0.04–0.36). No difference was found with regards to dysphagia (OR 1.21, 95% CI, 0.57–2.56) and NDI (MD 0.06, 95% C.I −0.54 to 0.42). Conclusion. Available evidence, although limited, suggests superior surgical outcomes in ACDF procedures with anterior plate fixation (increased fusion, decreased subsidence) and slightly better VAS-neck pain scores at last follow-up. Future longitudinal, multicenter randomized controlled trials should be completed to validate any associations found in this study. Level of Evidence: 3

OBJECTIVEIn this analysis the authors compare the characteristics of smokers to nonsmokers using demographic, socioeconomic, and comorbidity variables. They also investigate which of these characteristics are most strongly associated with smoking status. Finally, the authors investigate whether the association between known patient risk factors and disability outcome is differentially modified by patient smoking status for those who have undergone surgery for lumbar degeneration.METHODSA total of 7547 patients undergoing degenerative lumbar surgery were entered into a prospective multicenter registry (Quality Outcomes Database [QOD]). A retrospective analysis of the prospectively collected data was conducted. Patients were dichotomized as smokers (current smokers) and nonsmokers. Multivariable logistic regression analysis fitted for patient smoking status and subsequent measurement of variable importance was performed to identify the strongest patient characteristics associated with smoking status. Multivariable linear regression models fitted for 12-month Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores in subsets of smokers and nonsmokers was performed to investigate whether differential effects of risk factors by smoking status might be present.RESULTSIn total, 18% (n = 1365) of patients were smokers and 82% (n = 6182) were nonsmokers. In a multivariable logistic regression analysis, the factors significantly associated with patients’ smoking status were sex (p < 0.0001), age (p < 0.0001), body mass index (p < 0.0001), educational status (p < 0.0001), insurance status (p < 0.001), and employment/occupation (p = 0.0024). Patients with diabetes had lowers odds of being a smoker (p = 0.0008), while patients with coronary artery disease had greater odds of being a smoker (p = 0.044). Patients’ propensity for smoking was also significantly associated with higher American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class (p < 0.0001), anterior-alone surgical approach (p = 0.018), greater number of levels (p = 0.0246), decompression only (p = 0.0001), and higher baseline ODI score (p < 0.0001). In a multivariable proportional odds logistic regression model, the adjusted odds ratio of risk factors and direction of improvement in 12-month ODI scores remained similar between the subsets of smokers and nonsmokers.CONCLUSIONSUsing a large, national, multiinstitutional registry, the authors described the profile of patients who undergo lumbar spine surgery and its association with their smoking status. Compared with nonsmokers, smokers were younger, male, nondiabetic, nonobese patients presenting with leg pain more so than back pain, with higher ASA classes, higher disability, less education, more likely to be unemployed, and with Medicaid/uninsured insurance status. Smoking status did not affect the association between these risk factors and 12-month ODI outcome, suggesting that interventions for modifiable risk factors are equally efficacious between smokers and nonsmokers.